cite_corpus

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small behavioral detail beyond annotations — that the result includes parents of derivatives — which is useful. It doesn't contradict annotations, and given the rich annotation coverage the bar is lower, so a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The one qualification (including parents of derivatives) is placed where it adds value. It is lean without being under-specified to the point of meaninglessness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a single well-documented parameter, an output schema present, and full annotation coverage, the tool is largely self-documenting. The thin description is adequate but leaves behavioral specifics like output shape and scope unaddressed; the 'including parents of derivatives' hint covers part of that, but not all.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter 'corpus' already carries a description ('Variant key.'). The description adds nothing about how this parameter is used or validated, so it sits at the baseline 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb (Return) and resource (licence and citations), plus an informative qualifier about including parents of derivatives. This is clear enough for an agent to guess its purpose, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like audit_corpus or corpus_stats, which a reader might conflate with it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any of the seven siblings such as audit_corpus or corpus_stats. An agent must infer context from the name and description alone; there is no statement of when not to use it or which alternative fits which scenario.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.